Apple this week requested a permanent injunction against clone Mac maker Psystar that would prevent it from selling machines with Mac OS X and assisting others to install the operating system on unauthorized machines.

In a filing with Judge William Alsup made Monday, Apple asserted that it is entitled to a permanent judgment against Psystar under the U.S. Copyright Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Apple has argued that Psystar's continued business will irreparably harm Apple, and that Psystar has also spawned other infringers by "trafficking in circumvention devices."

In October, the company began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors with a product named Rebel EFI. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow manufacturers of Intel machines other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6.

Apple also said that the amount of damages that the Florida corporation is capable of paying are inadequate. The filing alleges that Psystar's costs exceeded its revenues in both 2008 and 2009, and the value of its assets, according to its bankruptcy filings, are less than $50,000.

"Even if Psystar could pay damages, the harm to Apple's brand, reputation and goodwill is unquantifiable," Apple said.

The filing includes an affidavit declaration from Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. Schiller found himself at the center of the Psystar controversy when the Florida company accused him of being "unprepared" for testimony. Schiller met with Psystar's lawyers for a deposition that Apple alleged was "nothing more than an effort to harass" him.

Schiller's affidavit filed this week attempts to convince the court to side with Apple, based on the logic that it would be a waste for Apple to have to file another suit.

"So long as Psystar continues these practices, the harm to Apple and its brand will continue," he said in the affidavit. "I believe Apple should not be required to file a new lawsuit to stop Psystar from infringing Apple's intellectual property each time Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X. Requiring Apple to file multiple lawsuits to stop the same infringing conduct would be unfair, expensive, and a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources."

A motion hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 14 in a San Francisco court.

The tide of the lawsuit officially turned in Apple's favor last week, when the Mac maker won a number of decisions in a preliminary judgment from Alsup. The court ruled that Psystar infringed on copyrights owned by Apple in order to place Mac OS X on unauthorized computers built and sold by the company. In addition, they were found to be in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's protection barrier that prevents installation of its operating system on third-party hardware. The decision came after both parties requested summary judgments.

Finally, Pystar is going down. Glad to know that a company that steals ideas from others (OSX86) and sells it is getting its just deserts.

I like the line of damage done to Apple's brand, and goodwill. The increase in Apple's sales and profits sicne Pystar has been around clearly show the hurt Apple has been under by this company. I think the words are false, but the fact remains that Pystar should be responsible for their actions.

In October, the company began to license its virtualization technology to third-party hardware vendors with a product named Rebel EFI. The Psystar OEM Licensing Program intends to allow manufacturers of Intel machines other than Apple to run Mac OS X 10.6

I wonder if Apple was a customer?

Just to buy it, place it on a cheap PC like a Dell, and install Mac OS X 10.6 so they can then dissect and put out a 10.6.x release to kill that ability, just like they do with ITMS releases that kill Palm PRE sync capabilities.

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

There are several OS X on PC cloners operating openly in various countries with various laws.

Apple is playing whack a mole and that still doesn't stop the home gamers and covert sales.

I guess someone in Cupertino thought it was cheaper to fight the cloners than install a $20 chip in each Mac that OS X needed in order to function.

Perhaps they thought: "Well if they won't buy a Mac anyway, then they are going to buy a cheap PC with Windows" " So we could gain OS X market share and steal a customer away from Windows, that better than nothing and they might buy a Mac later on"

Any logic in that?

Since I'm so close to Pystar, perhaps I'll talk to them about starting a new company using their existing technology and start selling clones too. Sure I will plan to be bankrupt in a few months or years, in Florida they can't take your house or car in a lawsuit.

the way that *i* see this is that apple doesn't really give a crap until the infringers get brazen about it or brag about their "conquests". once it gets in the press apple HAS to go on the offensive or they are at risk of losing whatever... the groups who are happy to stay under the radar shouldn't ever have any real problems.

all the drama with the ATOM processor being broken in 10.6.2 feels like the same thing... if people had just shut up about it apple may not have taken it out permanently...

if people would keep their mouths shut i think we'd have a much more flexible apple (just not officially).

There are several OS X on PC cloners operating openly in various countries with various laws.

they will get around to the countries that they can.

Quote:

I guess someone in Cupertino thought it was cheaper to fight the cloners than install a $20 chip in each Mac that OS X needed in order to function.

same game, different hack. that's all

as for the home brew kids, eliminating things like this Rebel software make it a little harder for them. some will give up.

and now that they have these suits behind them, it will be a heck of a lot easier to go to ISPs and have the various sites with instructions shut down because the rule is Knowledge and Technology.

Quote:

Since I'm so close to Pystar, perhaps I'll talk to them about starting a new company using their existing technology and start selling clones too.

and if it involves Mac OSX you better believe you'll be sued and fast. And your case won't take as long since Apple has legal precedent. You'll be famous for being the guy that didn't pay attention to Psystar

Quote:

Could have good case too, as Apple is ignoring a large market need.

No you would not. The law is no. Not no, unless the owners aren't making what a handful of folks want and then anyone can step up and do it.

Apple has the legal right to choose the configurations. Period

Quote:

Originally Posted by HerrWaldoRivera

the way that *i* see this is that apple doesn't really give a crap until the infringers get brazen about it or brag about their "conquests".

more like the louder they take the easier it is to find them.

Quote:

all the drama with the ATOM processor being broken in 10.6.2 feels like the same thing... if people had just shut up about it apple may not have taken it out permanently...

or not. all signs point to Apple having no need for ATOM support. so if they can clean up the code by taking out a few bits or not adding them in an update, they do it.

that it is the processor du jour for HackMacs is just icing on the cake

I don't see why not. Who would have thought the 15" MacBookPro was gonna get it? Nobody on here did when it was unexpectely and quietly announced last June and to a lesser extent the 17" inch. Remember- there was a period when there was NO matte available from Apple- at all. I am actually hoping for a 13" MacBookPro matte as well. There is a whole petition out there of people who want these. We don't care about the glossy being taken away - we just want an option. You see some of us folks in addition to asthetic and work preferences have a real sensitivity to light just like some have to smell and sound.

I don't see why not. Who would have thought the 15" MacBookPro was gonna get it? Nobody on here did when it was unexpectely and quietly announced last June and to a lesser extent the 17" inch. Remember- there was a period when there was NO matte available from Apple- at all. I am actually hoping for a 13" MacBookPro matte as well. There is a whole petition out there of people who want these. We don't care about the glossy being taken away - we just want an option. You see some of us folks in addition to asthetic and work preferences have a real sensitivity to light just like some have to smell and sound.

Who wants to bet that as a final f-you, Psystar manages to "accidentally" let loose all it's stuff as open source?

Or that, surprise surprise, one of the guys uncles in Croatia manages to set up an identical business using all the same equipment that somehow magically disappeared from the Psystar workshop before the Apple lawyers come to gather it up?

No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!

'Choice and competition', where'd I hear that before? Oh yeah, the government run health care plan. Pass it and we'll have no choice and no competition. Just like we have no matte screen iMacs. The Liberals of the world think they always know what's best for the rest of us but negate suffering from their stupidity themselves. I bet Steve has matte screen 27" i7 Silver & Black iMac at him home even as I type!

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Judge Alsup ruled that the customer owns the physical disc but does not own the software on it. The customer is licensing the software from Apple. Therefore Apple has the right to determine where and under what circumstances their licensed software is installed and used.

This goes for the individual hackintosh user also, not just Psystar. You do not have the legal right to install OS X on any piece of hardware you choose. You do not own OS X, you license it from Apple. And Apple has specified that you may only install it on Apple produced hardware. Therefore Apple, if it chooses to in the future, has the legal grounds to go after any hackinotsh, much like the RIAA goes after individual file sharers.

I wonder about that, too. They dont have locks on their HW. Its just the OS seeing if the machine is an appropriate Mac.

There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.

Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.

There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.

Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.

I don't know........ with all the great technology Apple has at their disposal and all the funding they have at their disposal.....they could if they wanted put a little chip in every Apple computer made that would make it impossible to install OS X on any computer that did not have this chip.
It could be done with very little expense compared to all the legal fees associated with litigation.
There has to be a reason why they have not done this yet.......

Tallest Skil:

"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse" "The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."

There is a chip. It's called the System Memory Controller. Every Hackintosh needs to load some software to emulate what the SMC does. This appears to be where most of the DMCA infringement comes from, since the SMC needs to be decrypted and reverse engineered in order to write the software emulator for it.

Apple could have tried harder to protect it when they switched to x86, but they probably had much more to worry about at the time and weren't really concerned with it. It's expensive and difficult at this point to add something now that doesn't break the installed base of Macs.
Today 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geekdad

I don't know........ with all the great technology Apple has at their disposal and all the funding they have at their disposal.....they could if they wanted put a little chip in every Apple computer made that would make it impossible to install OS X on any computer that did not have this chip.
It could be done with very little expense compared to all the legal fees associated with litigation.
There has to be a reason why they have not done this yet.......

You missed the point of the Jukes post you quoted. There is such a chip, and workarounds already exist. They could invest time and money to make such hacking more difficult, and expect the same end result, with software hacks to emulate or disregard the SMC chip (or whatever they came up with). With legal precedent, they can stop anyone who follows like Psystar, with much less effort and cost.

I think Apple is far less interested in the casual hacker/hobbyist, and much more interested in business who seek to profit off of Apple's licenses.

No, the question needs to be "Why in the hell did Steve, do away with the matte screen?" When we were perfectly fine with choice!

Give up man glassy is the new sexy and it's here to stay. I gave up and got a MacPro Quad (which wasn't TOO sad a purchase almost a year ago now) and let go my anger. I even held out until someone gave back a new 15in MBP antiglare and snatched that up refurb, life is good again.

If you can't swing the MP you can always do what I did before; 20in iMac (now 21in) and buy a 2nd matte screen and attach it. Sucks but I don't see them going matte on that system again. Well, or until that class action against Apple hits because the vibrant, color-exploding screens ruined regular life for them away from it and the wounds will never heal.

Oh wait I almost forgot.. Apple makes the best systems and has the best customer service in the world, we are lucky to have them in our lives.

You missed the point of the Jukes post you quoted. There is such a chip, and workarounds already exist. They could invest time and money to make such hacking more difficult, and expect the same end result, with software hacks to emulate or disregard the SMC chip (or whatever they came up with).

Nah, they could make a chip that couldn't be emulated easily in software. For instance what about tying a performance feature to the chip that if it wasn't available (on a hacintosh) OS X and apps would slow to a crawl? Like 56k dialup crawl speed?

The hackers would have to rewrite OS X from the ground up to avoid this necessary performance feature and all third party apps as well. Third party programmers would go along and use the feature because it's sort of a DRM thing, because if someone is willing to steal OS X to run on their hackintosh, they most likely would steal their software too.

Quote:

With legal precedent, they can stop anyone who follows like Psystar, with much less effort and cost.

In the U.S. yes, but now Apple has to duplicate this for every country that has a cloner company. And some countries don't give a flying ratt's behind neither. So a cloner can set up operations and mail the clones all over the world. Pystar was just stupid to do it in this country that's all. They will move shop you'll see, they got press now, which was their intention all along.

Look how hard Microsoft is trying to get the Chinese to pay for Windows, they don't bother. They get their copy of a hacked Windows from their local street vendor and there is nothing the Chinese government or Microsoft can do about it.

Quote:

I think Apple is far less interested in the casual hacker/hobbyist, and much more interested in business who seek to profit off of Apple's licenses.

Well what happens is the casual hobbyist gets the whole thing to work so easily eventually, writing code to help anyone do it. Then it gets posted to a geek website or several and next thing you know people are making money selling OS X Atom netbooks to their friends.

This is exactly why Apple quickly tried to disable OS X on Atoms, because a method was published (just recently in fact) and the geeks were hot to trot to make a little dough for the holidays.

The game of whack a mole starts out pretty slow and easy, but it gets faster and faster to the point it's impossible to whack every mole, unless you know the pattern.

There is no pattern in the game Apple is playing, they will lose if they continue on this path.

It's because Apple seriously didn't think OS X had a chance or overestimated Microsoft, and planned on becoming just another high end Windows PC vendor along with the name change to Apple from Apple Computer and the Intel switch. Thus the reason moved a lot of their apps to Windows as well. (Safari for crying out loud? WTF??)

And why the hell do you name a program to run Windows on Mac's "Bootcamp" anyway if your not trying to send a message?

Steve was ready to throw in the towel on OS X along with PPC processors to save Apple if it was hampering sales. Just lucky it turned out that Microsoft produced the abortion called Visa.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

Nah, they could make a chip that couldn't be emulated easily in software. For instance what about tying a performance feature to the chip that if it wasn't available (on a hacintosh) OS X and apps would slow to a crawl? Like 56k dialup crawl speed?

The hackers would have to rewrite OS X from the ground up to avoid this necessary performance feature and all third party apps as well.

In the U.S. yes, but now Apple has to duplicate this for every country that has a cloner company. And some countries don't give a flying ratt's behind neither. So a cloner can set up operations and mail the clones all over the world. Pystar was just stupid to do it in this country that's all. They will move shop you'll see, they got press now.

Look how hard Microsoft is trying to get the Chinese to pay for Windows, they don't bother. They get their copy of a hacked Windows from their local street vendor and there is nothing the Chinese government or Microsoft can do about it.

Well what happens is the casual hobbyist gets the whole thing to work so easily eventually, writing code to help anyone do it. Then it gets posted to a geek website or several and next thing you know people are making money selling OS X Atom netbooks to their friends.

This is exactly why Apple quickly tried to disable OS X on Atoms, because a method was published (just recently in fact) and the geeks were hot to trot to make a little dough for the holidays.

Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released. Apple knows this, which I suspect is why their products are such a breath of fresh air to it's user base. We aren't treated like criminals. Any kind of hardware dongle can always be emulated in software, or simply bypassed with inserted code. If what you suggested was so simple, we would all be plugging hardware dongles in to use our software. If you're old enough, you may actually remember using a hardware dongle. I know I do. They were a PITA, and didn't last long as a copy protection scheme.

I also disagree about foreign countries. Although there are some havens for copyright violators, most make efforts to prevent such. There are also many instances where US law has stated foreign law as precedent and vice versa. They don't simply ignore it at whim. It's funny you should mention that. Congress is currently debating a new treaty that some 160 countries are looking to sign onto indicating they will honor another countries copyright laws.

Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released.

Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I dont see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesnt seem viable.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I dont see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesnt seem viable.

I agree. I just don't see them implementing some sort of hardware dongle this late in the game. I suppose it's possible for future models with caveats written in for the earlier models, but the very same methods used to bypass it for the older models could simply be used to bypass the dongle.

This was about way more than your average geek hacking their own PC to run MacOS X. Psystar was directly attacking Apple's business model, and worse, they were attacking the validity of hardware/software coupling.

Had Apple's ability to tie it's software to its hardware been disrupted, it would set a dangerous legal precedent affecting all markets in the US - potentially affecting any product. Imagine a car company being required to allow their automobile operating code to be installed and run on an automobile designed by someone else. Could you imagine the kind of problems and dangers that could arise? What about an airplane? Don't think that this is a far-fetched argument. Once the door is open, degeneration happens quickly.

Kudos to Apple for fighting this one. Psystar is not anyone's friend, they are a self serving and extremely dangerous little group, whom I suspect were funded by some equally devious and dangerous perps.

Anti-copying methods have historically shown to be totally ineffective, and a waste of money. Most anti-copying techniques are cracked within hours, or sometimes even before the product is released. Apple knows this, which I suspect is why their products are such a breath of fresh air to it's user base. We aren't treated like criminals. Any kind of hardware dongle can always be emulated in software, or simply bypassed with inserted code. If what you suggested was so simple, we would all be plugging hardware dongles in to use our software. If you're old enough, you may actually remember using a hardware dongle. I know I do. They were a PITA, and didn't last long as a copy protection scheme.

I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.

Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?

See where I'm going?

Quote:

I also disagree about foreign countries. Although there are some havens for copyright violators, most make efforts to prevent such. There are also many instances where US law has stated foreign law as precedent and vice versa. They don't simply ignore it at whim. It's funny you should mention that. Congress is currently debating a new treaty that some 160 countries are looking to sign onto indicating they will honor another countries copyright laws.

Even if all countries agree to enforce, that only stops the visible companies that they can find or have the resources to go after or care. You really think every country is going to have it's own version of the RIAA storming people's houses looking for hackitoshes? Get real. Even if possible, it still leaves the home gamers and local tech guys wanting to make some money for the holidays selling hackintoshes to their friends.

Apple fighting the cloners is just like Microsoft's mistake with their security, fighting from the bottom up instead of the top down.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

I wasn't talking anti-copy like a dongle (which Quark X-Press had when it first came out and was very effective at preventing casual copying by employees), I was talking performance hobbling.

Say Microsoft tied so much of Windows operations to their proprietary Direct X video cards, it wouldn't run very well or at all on OpenGL video cards. Mac's wouldn't be able to run Windows without licensing Direct X from Microsoft right?

See where I'm going?

Even if all countries agree to enforce, that only stops the visible companies that they can find or have the resources to go after or care. You really think every country is going to have it's own version of the RIAA storming people's houses looking for hackitoshes? Get real. Even if possible, it still leaves the home gamers and local tech guys wanting to make some money for the holidays selling hackintoshes to their friends.

Apple fighting the cloners is just like Microsoft's mistake with their security, fighting from the bottom up instead of the top down.

Your idea of creating some sort of slowdown via software code is no different than a hardware dongle. If it can be written to work properly on a Mac, then it can be bypassed in software. To be minimally effective, It would require code to be strewn through the entire OS to be effective. It would be a total rewrite, which would take way to much money, time, and support resources, all to prevent something that a lawsuit can do just as well. I would imagine that Apple has already thought about all the pro's and cons of trying to tack on some sort of copy protection scheme, or simply barring people like Psystar from continuing. I think they made the right choice. They obviously thought they could win, and they have so far. A permanent injunction against them preventing the sale of any future hardware or software that bypasses Apple hardware or licensing restrictions is just as effective when it counts - In apples pocketbook.

Any hardware solution would have to be very hack proof, which I dont see, and have have been in place for years without knowledge as to support legacy Macs. For instance, Apple would have needed HW solution in place with every Intel Mac to make it useful with Snow Leopard. That doesnt seem viable.

Of course not, now that Mac's are really generic PC's like any other.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...